IMvHO - I doubt you will see these slide tracks in 2011 SS wake decks. This is specifically Kiteboard tech - and this is what SS does best - Kiteboarding. Kite boards need to be super stiff with crazy hard rails. Cool vid though.

Well I'll take that back then. My point is that this tech seems kite specific - not that wakeboards can't have channel mounted binding hardware - because they already do. This tech looks super rigid, specifically designed for kite. But hey I could be wrong. How did you know that was a SS? w/o any graphics how can you tell it was a Recoil? Perhaps a Ronix or HL flex prototype? I'm sure they will have one for 2011 and HL is mfg w/ channels already. Do you guys think the channel tech is worth the extra $?

looks like Burton's EST.... Something I steer away from. Why does all the "innovation" always seem to involve mounting and stance options? Seems like beating a dead horse, it just goes in circles from boardsport to boardsport and generations to generations.

IMvHO - I doubt you will see these slide tracks in 2011 SS wake decks. This is specifically Kiteboard tech - and this is what SS does best - Kiteboarding. Kite boards need to be super stiff with crazy hard rails. Cool vid though.

Actually our wakeboards are quite a bit stiffer, and much thicker than most of our kiteboards.

Slingshot is huge in kite, but our wakeboards have way more technology, and are built to be much more durable for rails and wake riding. After coming out with the FRT construction in our wake line we started using in some of the kiteboards because it works so well.

And i used to think that 4 hole was gona take over... guess not. ohh well.

would the track really make the board stiffer? forgive my ignorance. i know so little about it. i just think of snowboards as even more flexy than slingshot boards. don't the burton snowboards still flex a ton with them. could a flexy material be used to make the tracks? and are the tracks potentialy made outside the U.S.A.? again, my snowboard knowledge is... *makes rasberries sound while puting a thumb down"

the idea of the track system was mentioned on another thread. "Slingshot bindings-Pb Floyds or D2s? "
here>> http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=777747
apparently james rock is not the only one who saw a potential proto slingshot board with this system. "dirty cracker" also did.

this might be part of the reason for the boot delay/early 2011 release? changing the boots to fit this track system?
P.S. i just got a reply from slingshot that indeed they will be a july release. so that makes two confirmations at least. that is some extensive R&D goin on.

Snowboards to use it and still have plenty of flex, but I think length might be a factor there. Snowboards are generally longer than wakeboards, giving them more room to flex around the bindings. With wakeboards, I would think you might run into issues with the track flexing under a stiff 6" baseplate that is clamped down to it. Seems like a recipe for snapped mounting hardware. I'm not 100% sure how wide a snowboard binding is, but I would guess closer to 4" than 6", and that would make a difference for sure.

i hate to be a debbie downer, but that CWB testing video was dumb. i understand the attempt at humor, but it was not funny. not even a little. similar to the 300 foot rope and the wakeboard boxing gloves. sorry i clicked, i know its april fools, but shame on me for falling for it. i wont be fooled again.

I wish my severance had that. I'm stuck with either a 23" or 25" stance when I want a 24" stance. I've got a new pair of factions, does anyone know if CWB makes extenders for their new baseplates so I can mount between two holes to get that 24" stance?

Don't see the point in a track system on a wakeboard. A big reason its on a snowboard is because you change your stance. Power days you ride tail heavy, Park days you ride more centered,etc, etc.. Having the track system lets you change to suit the conditions really quickly and effortlessly. But on a wakeboard whether its butter sesh behind the boat or the series of left hand turns at the cable or shredding a tree stump in dirty water with a winch, I'm always running the same stance.

Kiteboarding I can't comment on, because I don't have any experience in the sport. But for right now in wakeboarding I believe its a total gimmick.

I wish my severance had that. I'm stuck with either a 23" or 25" stance when I want a 24" stance. I've got a new pair of factions, does anyone know if CWB makes extenders for their new baseplates so I can mount between two holes to get that 24" stance?

What about the company 2010 boots. the way they mount seems to allow the boot to not only float more toeside or heelside but also tip and tail? in a sense creating limitless stances but from the boot's hardware and not the board's? or am i watching and remembering the demonstrations of the boots wrong?

The track doesnt stiffen up a board, or at least it doesnt in snowboard construction. It is also light than a standard insert pack. The idea is that you can leave a lot of structure out of the base plate of the binding, mainly in the foot-bed area, which leads to added board feel and better flex under foot with smaller dead spots in the flex of the board. That is more than likely why the rider who was talked about testing it with ronix boots was doing so. Those boots have a foot bed in direct contact with a board top sheet, much like the burton est bindings.

I currently ride a slingshot, and if this comes into their 2011 line i will definitely go to company. That must weaken the board a lot more then the standard 4 hole mount. Imagine how crappy it would be when that big line pulls out of the board instead of a tiny insert.

I find it hard to believe that the whole track would rip out of the board, there is a lot more holding the track in than a couple little inserts. With Burton EST boards the big problem people have is with bindings shifting after hard landings. Which I can see being an issue here.

The track doesnt stiffen up a board, or at least it doesnt in snowboard construction. It is also light than a standard insert pack. The idea is that you can leave a lot of structure out of the base plate of the binding, mainly in the foot-bed area, which leads to added board feel and better flex under foot with smaller dead spots in the flex of the board. That is more than likely why the rider who was talked about testing it with ronix boots was doing so. Those boots have a foot bed in direct contact with a board top sheet, much like the burton est bindings.

Nicely said Pete. You're on the "right track"... It's lighter, actually much stronger than inserts, and does not change the flexing characteristics of the board.